You seem to know very little on both science and religion.

1. A find that shows a monkey capable of walking upright and having characteristics of both early man and ancient great apes disproves Darwin how?

2. The Bible doesn't state mankind began in Africa. That was a scientific theory based on fossil records and migration patterns.

The Bible states that mankind appeared in Mesopotamia--or modern day Iraq/Iran. Which is NOT in Africa.

Evolution has always been taught as a theory. It's Biblical Creationists who present their story as fact.

Well it is nice to know that we did not all come from 1 skin color or a monkey. We started out with alot of hair it looks like.

I recently read an article on Livescience about skin color and did agree only somewhat with the theory. It seems like the Bible, in Genesis may be more true than we belive. Humans have evolved alot since creation.

At the end of the day, people are going to see this evidence in the light that supports their views rather than objectively basing their views on certain facts, accumulative or not.

Evolution does not support nor refute the existence of God, and Darwin surely did not set out to do either in his studies, but there are people out there that use evolution to refute their lack of belief in God. Hence, taking the information available to press their beliefs.

We see what we want to see in the evidence. Take Piltdown man for example; a deliberate hoax, sure, but people saw what they wanted to see. It had the attention of the scientific community, having its supporters and critics much like "Ida" does, until it was confirmed to be a hoax some 40+ years later in 1956.

Whether someone believes God does not exist and this is yet one more piece of evidence to support that, or they believe that God is the Creator and this evidence is inconsequential to that, is all up to the person receiving it.

We can bicker and banter all day long, but there is no "winning" the argument for either side because at the center it's ideology that's being argued over, not evidence.

I agree with Mhatt1...people will see in this what they want. I don't understand why there cannot be a God and evolution...why couldn't He have created the universe and then let it evolve at it's own pace? Is it because of the bible and what it says? Because that was written by humans...and we all know how we humans can twist a story!

Tired of the Same-671697 please give me evidence? because the bible doesn't state about Mesopotamia in genesis just later on in the new testement for totally different subject. cause that long ago the continent's were one, silly? Mesopotamia was the first civilization not creation? since You seem to know oh so much on both science and religion. ancient great apes didn't stand upright you silly goose. Darwin is theory not fact, meaning reality!! it is as you see the bible. You don't really know how to BS that well bro!!

Even reasonable clergy don't support the notion of creationism/Intelligent design...

http://thecryingprophet.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/09/2663420-theologian-debunks-the-creationist-argument-against-evolution

Hey redphish - if Creationism were presented as a theory would it be taught in schools? Is it now?

Just a couple of notes:

1) The argument against Darwinism (gradualism) is pretty much a straw dog. That has not been a current theory in 30-40 years. It is never taught in schools. The current theory is called punctuated equilibrium.

2) The creationists like to point to the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism as proof that evolution did not happen. While the fossil record does not support gradualism (except within a species) it does precisely support punctuated equilibrium.

3) The vast majority of Christians see absolute no conflict between evolutionary theory and the Genesis creation story. Given the limited vocabulary and scientific knowledge of the day in which it was written, it is a very insightful description of that happened. Most major Christian denominations agree.

4) There are over 1000 creation myths that circulate in different religions. Why do people pick one over another? Many, in fact, were copied in part one from another. But what creationists want to have taught in school is a dogma that most Christians do not agree with and that is in direct contradiction with science. And we wonder why we must import scientists and mathematicians from abroad.

Chris - your point number 4 sounds exactly like scientific theory as well, does it not?

Read it again. Where does it say Darwin was wrong? It says simply that this fossil is older than the oldest known hominid fossil, pushing the split between apes and man further back in time. Evolution has not been negated by this. If you can't understand the simple language of this article then why do you feel qualified to weigh in on evolution?

Jinchuriki

I believe your post proves that at least some of us descended from apes. You seem closer to them than the rest of us though.

I think the real argument of evolution v. creationism is the concept of time. We presume to understand time on God's terms.

The Book of Genesis tells of how God created Earth and Life. Yet the Book of Genesis was undoubtedly written at the hand of man as instructed my God. The problem is that man had to write in terms that man could comprehend at the time.

And finally the Christian based faith believes that the Bible is true. I believe the Bible is indeed true, I just have doubt that we have a true version of the Bible. One only need to read about the Council at Nicaea to learn that the books that are considered the "true words" were selected by a panel that was as corrupt with power as anything. There have been new "Gospels" discovered even in recent times yet the Church denounces them as blasphemy simply because the wording poses a direct danger to the church but not to the faith. The Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1945 is a good example.

Jinchuriki

Read my post again. I didn't say great apes stood upright. I said:

A find that has characteristics of BOTH early man (i.e. standing upright) AND ancient great apes (i.e. hands, feet, and face). There is a difference.

Also, as for the location, from Genesis 2:10-14

"A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

Eden, where the Bible states mankind was born, is between all these river--which are in the MIDDLE EAST. Not Africa.

This is an interesting find, and one that has been long-awaited both by scholars of Cultural Anthropologists. It can only help fill in some gap, without solving the puzzle--the common ancestor has yet to be found.

This would stir arguments surrounding Creationism vs. Evolution. A very hot subject indeed. But please understand that evolution does not preclude a 'creation,' nor does creation preclude evolution. They may live comfortably side by side. I know, as that has been my approach to 'life, the universe, and everything' for many a year.

Humans are remarkable. There is no other creature past or present that can equal a species that has moved from cave-dwelling to cities, to Moon, Mars, and beyond in little more than 30K years. Creationists, please find solace in that very important fact. Evolution in no way diminishes your primacy on Earth.

Juliana from LA...

And God

^{said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.}

Sixth day created Male and Female.

Gen 2:7

And the LORD
^{God formed manof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.}

Adam was formed. The first men and women were created on the 6th day Adam was formed after the 7th. Cain married from the first lot.

Since this Tyler sought to censor and delete my posts I thought I would re-post a condensed version of the entire discussion.. Yeah I log everything!..

Tyler.. This discussion has everything to do with evolution because it gives insight to how things were created and evolved...

I'm posting below..

Well the control premise for most religions is the belief in a Self aware supernatural being called a "GOD"... The believe this being has created everything... However there is a very simple way to disprove the existence of a GOD by simple deductible logic in two different ways..

1) We can all agree "Existence" exists.. And for a religious person they believe a "GOD" exists... The flaw in this is apparent... If a GOD is within existence it could not have created it... You can't exist outside existence in order to create it.. You either exist or you don't... Simply put God can not pre-exist existence.. It's a virtual impossibility even for a Supernatural being...

This suggest that existence is the eternal element that makes the universe and not a GOD... Existence is of it's own definition and always points back to it's self...

This would also mean there is no such thing as "Nothing" Nothing can not exist within existence... it's merely a descriptive word to describe the absence of something... There is also no such thing as a TRUE VOID... A void is not void of existence and obviously not void of the information that gives it a definition... Thus, in existence there can not be a void in the literal sense..

2) Information.. Information is key to existence... It can be said that existence is pure information... And here is where a self aware Deity also fails as a likely explanation... The Deity would be in need of information and existence... it would be subjected the requirements of those two elements in order to exist...

So what is intelligence? It is the collection of information..Hence Wisdom.. In knowing this.. The Deity could not even be self aware or even know it is a GOD without the information required to know he is who he is.... A supernatural being would not be without limits or rules bound to existence... Thus this so called "GOD" would be enslaved to the very same rules as we all are....

Debunking religion isn't hard with deductible logic... It simply makes more sense that existence it's self has to be the base to it's self.... Existence can not be created... It can only simply exist...

However, nobody will ever know how exactly existence works or why it is what it is... This type of information is not obtainable... It's like trying to travel to the core of a Black Hole to see what really goes on... It's impossible to answer... I will post a really good example below of what I mean by unattainable information.."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Example: ( A disgussion with a gentleman named KJR) This is a copy paste of my reply to his misunderstanding of what I meant by unattainable information..

This example will talk about unattainable information and how it applies to human limits on being able to decode or perceive information beyond our natural and technological means..

First.. What a gentleman named KJR wrote that sparked the example based on his "Hill" analogy..: I wrote the example to better explain to him what unattainable information is..

KJR,

"The three year old says, "that 'bent ground' goes really fast"

The ten year old says, "that hill is higher than the rest of the land, and you can ride fast down it"

The twenty year old says, "Physics has taught me that the pull of gravity will cause an object to be pulled down that elevation, and I wonder why there is an elevation of the land there?"

Their grandfather says, "that elevation was made many years ago when they dug out an area for a pond and deposited the ground that was removed over to that area and made a hill...to build a house on that would not flood...but that house is no longer there and only the raised elevation remains."

My Reply:

Take everything we currently know about this Universe and then try to explain that to a person who was born mute, deaf, blind, un-able to smell touch or feel anything.. To them our Universe doesn't exist.. It is beyond their ability to perceive it.. This information is unobtainable to them... They probably don't even have a self awareness of even know if they have 2 hands and two legs...

Take that same example and try to explain how that person feels or how their perception of being is like... And you will realize that this also is unobtainable information... There is no simple 3 year old analogy that can make simple explanations to things we can not perceive... So even in an outside view can be limited to what information is available for you to understand... You would have to be in both places at once... And even then you are still in another place of existence that you can't ever fully understand..

So even if this mute wakes up and discovers our universe or world and it explains to us what it's own was like we are till left with the questions about this universe and what is beyond it or what makes it what it is... This opens the door to the possibility of infinite universes or realities...

The hill is well into the realm of a child's perception and thus the information is subject to interpretation and understanding... A child's view on that hill is merely the basic view of what that hill is.. A child would not know what a hill is if it could not perceive it..

We can only develop theories based on what we know or things we know and do not understand... A larger vocabulary isn't going to change this... Like the Complete human mute example can only guess to understand it's own existence and universe based on what it can perceive. And that guess may not realize that it was born from another living thing in another universe that it can not see or understand....

So can you understand a complete mutes universe? is this person even self aware.. What does it see... What kind of world does it live in? We can only guess and we have the advantage of knowing the mute's existence...

This how humans are when it come to understanding the Universe and existence... The bulk of the necessary information is not perceivable... Hence to have even some understanding of your existence beyond what you know or can perceive you would have to be outside that locked perceptual existence to understand it.. Hence the mute can not fully understand it's existence without gaining touch, smell, and sight.. They are forever locked into their own little universe never to fully grasp or understand it...

Existence and basically be describe by its self.. It just is what it is and always has been what it is.... You can't make logical sense on how existence can come from nothing or even from a GOD..because nothing it's self is still existence and it's contradictory to its own definition. And a GOD has to be within Existence so it couldn't create it's self or existence.. Nothing also can only exist as a descriptive word for the absence of something and can not describe actually be in existence in the literal term...

Example:

I can say there is nothing on my table but empty space... To describe what isn't there... But yet there is still space or at the very least information to tell me there is space there... So the term nothing can't ever be used literally when it concerns existence.

basically Evolution is obtainable information and can be proven or proved wrong.. However, existence and it's origins or even the origin to life can not be obtainable.. But you can rule out possibilities as more unlikely than others... But again you can't prove it either way for certain...

From Ardi to Rush Limbough, further proof the GOP have come full circle after millions of years evolution.

Tired of the Same-671697 - are you sure? I don't believe you! GOD is RIGHT you are WRONG!!! bro, I was messing with you to see what you had bro, i know what it says in genesis. but at that time it was not the middle east nor Africa while the continents were togther and drifted apart as they do today. in so many millions of years they will crash back together again. I wish we could go back in time to see what it really looked like back then? that would be so awesome!! but don't really care because I would rather be created from a high being than an evolved idiot monkey, if you want to downgrade go on ahead I choose not, we are far to advanced and superior being to be such. I guess only in death shall we find out what is beyound that walk. in your case bible is theory a guess and made up, well so is darwins theory we're from monkey's its only an educated guess not acctual absolute facts, a rendering of what the body may of looked like on the outside regardless of bone structure. really I think we came straight from ooze and pooof a human was born!!! curently we fail to evolution standards and are falling backwards, we are devolving.

JimC-300069 - I find you and throw monkey poo on you and your car too!!! how long did it take you to come up with that? you are awesome!!! you should get a round of applause for that, no seriously! I wouldn't even come close to coming up with that? do you do stand up comedy? you should! that $HIT was hilarious!!! no no seriously I am pissing my pants and all over your face I had printed on the front of my under panties that was so original, wow!!! MONKEY SEE MOKEY DO!!

"GOD is RIGHT you are WRONG!!!"

Though I agree with you that there isn't enough evidence to make human lineage tied to apes a fact... However, your statement is equally illogical and illogically based on pure belief and faith with nothing to show it as a fact... It's merely something you want to believe over something else regardless if it's right or wrong...

So before you talk about "Monkey See Monkey Do" you really need to look in the mirror... Because that is what religious ideologies thrive on... Followers... Monkeys following other Monkeys that proclaim to know something they really don't...

Religion is pure illogical and makes no sense.. it's full of holes...

"I would rather be created from a high being than an evolved idiot monkey,"

Note the I would rather be part vs whether or not if it's actually true... This is called blind faith and a GOD Complex to where you think of yourself too good to be an animal... Which is exactly what you are... You may be able to think but you are still apart of the ecosystem.. Your importance is actually lower than that of the most basic life forms that sustain your existence as a viable species.. Top of the food chain doesn't make you king of the world... It makes you the first to go when @!$%# hits the fan...

GOD is completely unprovable... And I clearly made that obvious.... But for giggles you can go here to this article:

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/04/3346457-existence-information-vs-god-

Religious people ignore logic in order to hold on to their beliefs.. They will even subject their own interpretation to the point to re-writing the bible in order to desperately hold on to the ideology...

I can say this... If GOD does exist.. GOD was created... Merely a man with tools and a pile of wood to build a house... Without those tools GOD wold not exist or be anything at all.... Enslaved to these tools it is...

It is highly unlikely a GOD created everything... Especially the two most important elements would be things he would need to have to create with are two things he could not create... ;) And those two things are two things that would be required for his own existence to be possible...

So sorry you fail...

In fact you have less evidence to suggest you are correct vs wrong on this subject Jinchuriki

basically you remind me of someone that tried to claim Nothing as a THING when it can not be a thing... It's a contradiction to it's own definition... you can't both exist and not exist at the same time... Nor can Nothing pre-exist existence for the same reason... Nothing can't be a thing and then be considered obedient to its own definition.. It thus falls under the definition of existence...

There for your Existence has always existed because existence can be a thing and a thing of its own definition.. There is no contradiction... And clearly proves GOD and not a viable explanation to existence... You can't create existence....

And without information within existence you wouldn't even have a self awareness...

And here is the 3rd flaw... If GOD is existence then everything is GOD because then you are thus apart of GOD and if GOD always Existed then you were not created by GOD because you are GOD... That is why the Bible clearly states a GOD as a seporate self aware entity apart from everything else... So by the bible GOD is not Existence...

Also Existence its self can not have a self awareness.. It requires information within existence to generate a self awareness.. Self awareness is a symbiont of Existence and information... Information is a symbiont of Existence... Existence is the host to everything and anything... Including your supposed GOD..

GOD can not pre-exist existence in order to create existence.. He can't even pre-exist information in order to create it... two eternal elements your GOD is slave to..

SORRY!

your whole argument is false due to the fact that the existence of planets and space came into existence from nothing thus the big bang theory? so what was able to hold that information and self awareness for that bang to explode into existence before its own existence? how is that plausible on your argument? OXimoronic? if that were true we would not be here. so I guess we are existing beings in a non-existing world? Can you prove that the big bang theory actually happened? or is that a faith in an educated guess to better understand the unknown to the human mentality? Nothing is a thing, that is why there is thing in the word to describe an object that is not there but some where else.Existence is not a host to everything, I AM. Because I exists at that first breath my life begins. I don't exists because of existence sake, existence exist because I DO. existence exists on my input of my existence of my information of output of my self awareness that I exist to create that existence. I like you, you made me tinkle.

you should watch NOIEN its a great Japanime on different dimensions and on existance and self awareness, it is so cool!

Existentialsts make my head hurt

Jinchuriki,

Umm your logic fails...

Fist off the BigBang theory has nothing to do with existence... The big bang theory has to do with what created the stars and planets... It does not explain "Existence"...

Secondly...

Nothing can't exist as a Thing dumb ass.. It's not a person place or thing in the literal sense... If there is nothing then there is nothing to create with... No god.. no tools ectra...

Nothing is a contradiction and a parodox to it's self and thus it can not exist as a person place or thing... Thus it is just a descriptive word to describe the absence of something you expect to be there...

You can take and empty cup ans say there is nothing in it.. It's empty... Void.. But you are only making that description based on what you expect to be in it... Liquid or any other object you can see... Is there not available space to put something there? Is there not air in the cup... Can you empty out the information that tells you that the cup is empty? No you can't because if you did the cup it's self wouldn't have any shape or form to tell you it's empty.. hence the cup wouldn't exist..

Take your cup and try to empty if of existence... Hell try to even imagine it... Is it a black hole or blank? If you can imagine it then its something and not "Nothing"

Words like non-existence or nothingness or nothing are parodoxes to their selves.. they can not be of them selves..

Thus existence simply exists because existence can be of it's self and of it's own definition.. there is no paradox to existence...

"existence exists on my input of my existence of my information of output of my self awareness that I exist to create that existence."

But here you are stating that you pre-exist your existence.. If your pre-exist the existence you have created then you went from one place of existence to another... You didn't escape existence...

Existence can be any reality and interpretation or form... I has no limits... And the Substance of existence is information... And thus anything you know including who you are is merely information...

Information is the Substance of existence... A self awareness is a product or creation of Existence and information... Because self awareness is merely a collection of information...

You can't have a self awareness without existence or information.. plain and simple... self awareness can not be an eternal element... It's equal to what the stars and planets are.. a product of creation from two base eternal and infinite elements...

Existence and information can not have a self awareness because of the fact that it takes both to create it ;) And that it's a collection of and not the sum of the whole...

I can prove you wrong by a simple paradox... Can GOD kill himself and leave the universe as it is... The paradox can't apply to information because information is the paradox.. hence a self aware deity could not have created existence or information... He would have to pre-exist existence which is impossible.. And that would put you in a position to admit GOD didn't exist... Because as stated above if your out side existence you don't exist...

So it's simple deductible logic.. If GOD exists he was created and Existence simply exists...

So if you told me the Existence is Self aware or the Sum of the Whole is self aware then I could literally have a full conversation with anything living or dead... And I don't recall a rock telling me about his bad day when some ass skipped him across the river....

So your logic failed...

You need to learn what "all set" and "All sets" represent.. Self awareness represents "All Set" meaning it only represents it's self and it's point of view... VS "all sets" which represents all and all points of view... Meaning It can be it's self and represent everything else.....

A self awareness can not represent what makes it but only what it makes it's self..... Existence and information can..

Self awareness is confined by true or false... Existence can be both because it's substance is information and information can be true or false.. it can be anything including a lie or a reality... It can be a paradox... Because information and existence is the some of all things...

Existence is information.. self awareness is a collection of... hence the product of...

The problem with religious people is that can't do critical thinking on their beliefs... They fail to understand a belief is an intangible and improvable thing.. It thus becomes an invalid argument.. It thus has no relevance or importance or even real significance beyond their belief... It's not a fact that they are sating....

All intangible information is irrelevant.... Thus making it invalid... It can't account for paradox's or flaws in its ideology... Thus it's more likely false, irrelevant, or useless information....

Taking this we can agree that existence and information are fact and relevant... They are tangible... Proven to be... And thus you can argue your existence and existence it's self as the more likely answer to the question.. Because the evidence is of it's self and everything else...

Can GOD create a Rock he Can Not lift? They answer is NO...

But information can be both yes and no because it can be whatever... Information is not true or false... It can change the paradox at any time and be both yest and no... Or it can be irrelevant where neither yes or no apply... Because information is not bound to rules... Hence information can use impossible to negate the paradox... A god could not do this because it is bound to the need of information just to be self aware...

So a Deity is bound to limitations regardless of what you think...

you are so full of redundancies and arrogance I stopped reading at jackal, I can't believe you wrote a whole 2 pages and a half of nothing! you know when you try to sound smart when it makes no sense you look more dumb, because your logic fails to your fantasy thoughts of a closed mind. becasue the stars and planets were created from nothing before it existed which means what? don't burn your brain now jickle! if that didn't happen we wouldn't exist! you are a fool, so when you are dead does your existecnce still exist? or has it ended? next time you want to vomit crap, do it in the toilet!!!! why do you think moderator tyler has been quietly deleting your crap because that's all it is!!! delinquent minds make me barf ;( don't hate because you can't understand logic of genius and gots showed up within a paragraph to your 100 pages of nothing

THIS CONVO HAD ENDED due to your deaf mind ;(

Do not throw pearls of wisdom to swine that wallow in the mud.

Hey if your in ability to converse logically is your excuse to ignore this then feel free to do so.. Nobody made you read it... Your entire post here shows it...

"don't burn your brain now jickle! if that didn't happen we wouldn't exist!"

You are too dumb to understand the "We" are not existence it's self... Your a complete idiot...

Did the big bang happen in existence.. did it have a location, place and time of the event... Even if you are religious you are still stating that it took something to make something... Hence you are your own paradox dumb ass..

Comprehension is beyond you apparently...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_of_all_sets

Read this and you might actually grow an intelligence to realize that the only thing that be a "Set of all sets" is information.. Hence existence...

Only a religious nut job like yourself would ignore the argument and use the substance of the argument to try and argue with... Hence you have to use information to argue with stupid..

Right, he just planted 4.4 million year old bones to confuse us right?

Except

1. The Bible never says the earth is "6000 years" old. Anywhere. So you can't read something that doesn't exist.

2. Adam and Eve had three sons (and other unnamed sons and daughters), right?

So, either we evolved or we are the product of thousands of years of inbreeding.

If the earth is only 6000 years old, then please explain why we continue to find evidence, factual, tangible evidence at that, to the contrary?

Do you believe Dinosaurs existed? I mean, they are way older than 6000 years, but we have bones, diets, fossilized eggs, prints in the mud, you name it, we have proof! So logic would lead to if the dinosaurs existed then so did the earth.

But let me guess, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History is fabricating all those dinosaur fossils right? There aren't really fossils in there, they are just holographic images that are used to control the masses??? (note sarcasm)

Religion=greatest set back of the human mind in the history of humanity.

And as far as the bible being "the word of God" I"m sorry but the bible is "the word of man". Written by man, produced by man, and distributed by man.

It may say that God told the men who wrote it these stories, but either way it is hearsay from a second party, "man" not God himself.

I was wondering how long it would take for the fundies to come out and start quoting the bible. The bible is the word of god only if you believe in god so it pretty much doesn't mean anything to me. Scientific evidence carries much more weight with me than a mythology book.

Abakar

The fundies have the dinosaur mystery covered.

Despite the fact they aren't mentioned in the Bible, the various Creationist Museums around the country have children frolicking in the Garden of Eden riding dinosaurs, petting dinosaurs and having them as pets.

It's very Flintstone-esque.

Haha thanks for the update. I must have missed that one!

Yabba-Dabba-Dooooo

abaker1234 Post#4.3 The last sentence of your comments says it all. Very well put. We cannot let religion and it's myths and superstitions stand in the way of science.

Th Bible was written long after Jesus died, written for th sole reason to CONTROL the less than intelligent.

Ted C. & abaker

Please explain to me how religion has set back mankind? I mean science is supposed to be so right yet it seems to me that year after year they are discovering more and more but yet science has yet to discover any proof that man evolved from anything other than another man. So your statement "religion and it's myths and superstitions stand in the way" applies to science as well! Only the ignorant would discount all possibilities. What makes a good scientist is a person with an open mind to all possiblities. As there have been many many scientist agree that there maybe a greater being at work here. Even Darwin stated as much. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.

So--God went skipping through the strata scattering fossils just to mislead man? I have a hard time believing that!

WOW! I was having a not so good day until I read this. Thanks for a great laugh!!

"So, either we evolved or we are the product of thousands of years of inbreeding"

Well that explains everything!!!!!

You guys all just got trolled. Good one, kflann!

Trolled, sounds as if you know something of inbreeding. How sad.

Whether through Adam and Eve or some form of evolution wouldn't inbreeding be the only form of species population? If not then how? Or is evolution so spontaneous that many mates appear instantaneously?

I no longer have a bible to read. I stopped reading fiction several years ago. You say God created the world 6000 years ago and created all the animals and humans. It has been proven without a doubt that we have recovered animals 15 million years old and humans 4 million years ago. Who put these animals on this earth. I'm sure you can find something in the bible to explain this so please explain it to me. 100 years ago, 95 percent of humans believed in God. Now that were more educated, 75 percent have that belief. If the 75 percent told the truth, the number would be much lower. There scared to admit their feelings from fear that people like you with a closed mind will shun them and most people don't like been excluded from the mass. In many generations from now, 95 percent of people will look back on religion as the biggest hoax ever committed on mankind.

LOL, Skip, you paragon of virtue and intellect, he purposefully posted an inflammatory comment to lure responses from people. It's internet slang and comes from the word "trolling."

The calculation used here was performed in the late 1700's by a British preacher. It certainly does NOT have direct Scriptural foundation.

Strict belief in the text of the Bible tends to lead people to take that calculation as true, unfortunately. But then again, the Bible most people read today is itself not the original text anyhow. it has been edited, changed in translations, and worked over so many dfferent times that it is now very far divorced from the original texts. The Gospels are not only NOT the actual work of the fourDisciples but the creation of unknown writers between 100 and 400 years after Christ. The entire New Testament is ultimately the work of a committee convened under Emperor Constantine's sword. All manner of material at that time considered Scriptural was tossed out by that committee of bishops.

People who take the Bible literally place their faith in the wrong place.

John - sources please.

To believe the earth is only 6000 years old implies some sort of conspiracy on the part of millions of paleobiologists, geologists, anthropologists, and astrophysicists. Who would have thought that all those guys would get together just to try to punk a bunch of folks who knew the real facts? Carbon dating? Argon dating? Fossil evidence? Geological evidence? What an elaborate hoax. Who would have thought all those nerds had it in them.

Sad State - google "Council of Nicaea" - good place to start a RATIONAL inquiry into the nature of the New Testament - that was the editing committee.

interesting.. I log back in to Newsvine and all my posts are gone.. wtf? Why were they deleted? And it's not just my posts missing... Newsvine resorted to censorship?I seriously find this pathetic that posts here are being quietly removed....

The cessation of brain function with death sort of keeps the dead from knowing anything.

or the cessation of brain function in live humans.....

Present your evidence. If man is the one assuming the dates of the earth's age and if man is not always right in his assumptions, then doesn't it logically make sense that man could be wrong about the age of the earth? I am amazed that man cannot preswent a logical argument about a simple topic. God made man.

By the same right owlett how can we continue to believe in modern science which is skewed through bias and political posturing? Science of our planet is based on extremely small samples of data by comparison to the subject being studied. What is the control group for carbon dating? How many years old is that control?

Since the half-life of Carbon 14 is known you really don't need a "control".

Skip and Sad State-If by your premise that man is fallible in his scientific calculations as it pertains to dating fossils and the earth , then isn't it also true that he is fallible when it comes to his dating the age of the world in the Bible? If science and religion both come through man then wouldn't you believe in the more modern version as we've made quite a few advances such as the computer you are commenting on in 2000 years.

Vulcan - I never said what the age of the world as recorded in the Bible is. It says 6 days, from a being that is existant in eternity I cannot fathom how long 6 days would be.

SadStateAmerica,

Take your comment a step further.

A Critical Assumption

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS ¹⁴C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining ¹⁴C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of ¹⁴C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of ¹⁴C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no ¹⁴C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.²

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of ¹⁴C /¹²C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.³

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and ¹⁴C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

The key word is assumption.

Bd,

Your blurb is nonsense that contains so many inaccuracies that they hard to name. But I'll try my hand at a few off the top of my hand.

1) Will Libby was not the author of the initial work on C14 dating. Enrico Fermi was. But Fermi was a guy who spewed out ideas over the place and seldom followed up completely on any of them. Libby followed up on Fermi's initial calculations by confirming that pieces of an Egyptian barge dated exactly as specified by the written historical record. He spent most of his life doing the same for Biblical archeological sites that could be dated through a written record (usually the Bible plus Egyptian and Roman records.) Where C14 dating can be done in concord with a written historical record, there has always been a match.

2) The usefulness of C14 dating only goes back about 60,000 years before 1950 (the standard date.) I have no idea where you got 80,000. C14 dating only applies to living organic plant materials. And it has absolutely nothing to do with a belief in evolution or that the earth is billions of years old.

3) Yep, Libby tried to tie up loose ends in the decay of C14 to C12 and could not account for it. He never ignored the issue as you state. But you have to remember that this was 1949. Nuclear physics was brand new. Radio-isotopes had just been discovered. And we knew nothing of the influence of solar radiation, upper atmosphere ionization and other issues that effect decay. Libby worked out a C14 half-life of 5568±30 years, the "Libby half-life." Later a more accurate figure of 5730±40 years was determined, which is known as the "Cambridge half-life." To no ones surprise the later half-life calculation resolved Libby's (correct) concerns, but only corrected the dating process by less than 1% in accuracy.

My guess is that the incorrect assumption that you are referring to is your own assumption that you know what you are talking about. You don't! Anyone interested can google everything I have said and verify it. If you google a substantial passage from your statement, you will find it was copied from a religious tract.

Chris,

I salute you.

Where C14 dating can be done in concord with a written historical record, there has always been a match

That's not exactly true, which is why carbon dates are now often given in "calibrated" dates. They found out within the last few decades that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 absorbed by living things has not been constant throughout history. They know how to correct for it now, at least over the last few thousand years, but it shows that some traditional dates are actually decades or even centuries too late.

Chris,

You might want to recheck your blurb I mean facts. LOL

My statement was copied from another site as I am not a nuclear physicist. Never claimed to be just stating how carbon dating is not as accurate as some may believe.

Enrico Fermi won a Nobel Peace prize in 1938 for his work in "his discovery of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for the discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons." This in no way gives any contribution to your opinion that he was the one who spewed out ideas and never followed up on them is just ludicrous to say the least. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Secondly,

In 1945, after the war had ended, Libby accepted a post of professor of chemistry in the department of chemistry and Institute for Nuclear Studies (now the Enrico Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies) of Chicago University. There, in 1947, Libby first proposed his radiocarbon dating theories. Soon after, he presented evidence of its viability. Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 (or C-14) dating, is based on the principal that all living things are mostly made of carbon. The method of dating lies in trying to determine how much carbon 14 (the unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon) is present in the artifact and comparing it to levels currently present in the atmosphere. http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/libby.html this is an except from M.I.T. and above is the link.

This is what I found via google. Please feel free to comment and correct as you like. But I think I already made my point.

Bd,

I would suggest you read a good biography of Enrico Fermi. I would recommend Emilio Segrè (1970). Enrico Fermi—Physicist. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74473-6. It is available from Amazon.com in both new and used.

Fermi was noted for being a splendid collaborator. When he had ideas he shared them with colleagues who were allowed to follow up on thei if desired. He also sparked literally hundreds of doctoral theses and post-doctoral works by coming up with ideas that were worthy of investigation. Such was the case with Libby, a co-worker at FermiLab (as it was called then and now.) Fermi actually published on C14 decay and its connection to plant aspiration in 1939. If you dig into nuclear physics from the 1935-1950 period you will find that Fermi was often cited as the original source or original observer of a huge number of papers . To check it out use Google Scholar, not Google. The guy was a genius who was working in a brand new field and was discovering more new things than he could ever directly research himself. That is a simple fact.

Because a person does not agree with you does not automatically make them "ludicrous." More careful research would make your posts less subject to correction.

And, DC

I tried to get into calibrated dates a little with both points #2 and #3. The current calibrated dates +-10 years are about 45,000 years. +-138years is 60,000 years. Beyond that there is no good calibration --- probably because of asteroid strikes. There is no absolute dating method, but science has managed to get reliably within a handful of years by carefully "calibrating" known specimens to the written history and by working with such things as tree rings and stalagmites. In short, it is a good, accurate and useful tool if you know what you are doing.

Science. It's what allows us to learn at all, and without it you'd have died a long time ago by burning in a fire or falling off a cliff or something stupid. If you ignore science, you just don't know as much. Since religion is subjective and speculative, the same cannot be said.

Science. It's what allows us to learn at all, and without it you'd have died a long time ago by burning in a fire or falling off a cliff or something stupid. If you ignore science, you just don't know as much. Since religion is subjective and speculative, the same cannot be said.

Wow. Three sentences and each one is a logical fallacy chocked full of assumption and no substance.

How right you are. Science is many time based upon a hypothesis and theory and cannot be proved in its entirety.

Science is an attempt to understand things, you can look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is not necessary to listen to the scientist's interpretation of the data, though that is usually helpful as their goal is to be as unbiased as possible.

There should be no smoke and mirrors associated with science. Maybe if you ask your question a fellow scientist can help you out. =)

Skip52- and religion is based on what?

A definitive answer is easy. Science tells us that there is always something new to learn. Religion tells us that there is not.

I hope this scripture will help someone...."Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the "fallback position" when the evidence doesn't conform to what you want to be true. Just sayin'

skip52:

Science does not (and does not claim to) prove anything; it only disproves things. That said, there is not one single piece of evidence disproving the theory of evolution. For hundreds of years people have been digging up fossils and working to explain and explore the world around them. In that time not one piece of evidence has been uncovered which discredits evolution. As such, it is the best explanation for the growth and transformation of life on earth. If you are so certain that evolution is wrong, get out there with your shovel and trowel and find the mythical rabbit of the pre-Cambrian and prove it wrong. Don't sit around and use some outdated Roman fabrication to justify your beliefs while you demean those who actually go out to the field and make full use of their abilities to think, reason, and explore.

In the article did they not test DNA against Human genetic markers.Quote (It represents a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus — itself ancestral to our genus Homo,”)

Read the article again. Look I believe in GOD. If you don't believe in a power bigger than you. Try to make yourself not breath. You know that feeling of pressure to breath and live. Well its all around us.

The Early Aramaic Jews when writing the Bible most likely did not even have a clue as to how much drama and pain that book would cause. They were trying to explain a way of living in their time that they believed to be righteous.

Two different main Religous sects of Judasm followed Muslims and Christians. Ironic kinda like two differnet forms of lineage followed our common ancestors Apes And Humans.

Here is my point there is a force at work that is grander than all of us combined. That we cannot even yet understand.

And an idea that some people have the Keys to the kingdom and all others will perish in a lake of fire. Well that is false a fairy tale. And something used to keep you a slave to a CULT.

All the devil is, Is all you believe him to be. Your worst fears of what you think you could become. A way to point out how I am not that bad. And God should forgive me.

God is everything and nothing at the same time. It (God) is the glue that is holding it all together. In a perfect array. Atoms just close enough or just far enough.

To hold a god to just one form in a book to reduce God to a set of man made rules. Is to make him not God at all. Why would man evolve and not God? Even perfection adapts and grows. A living God would adapt and grow. If God were static never changing God would not be alive. But dead

Sorry atheist just my opinion. Thanks for you patience

We sleep eight hours a day. Reflexive breathing is a pretty necessary evolutionary trait. The fundimental driver behind evolution is self survival, (creatures without a desire to survive die and don't reproduce), so that pressure to live also isn't all that surprising.

But yet it is there and by your statement necessary/ Look I believe in evolution. It is a fact in my book. You don't have to believe in a power that's bigger than you. But yet it is there and you cannot deny that as well. The very desire to survive is a trait that suggests a God or for lack of a better term Connection to life. Or the desire for it.

I just tend to believe that we are all connected. And that collection is my God. That we are interdependent upon one another. When we harm a part of that collection we feel apart from it when we help it we fell that we are a PART of it.

Which one of the amoebas decided, "Hey, I don't like being an amoeba any more. I want to strive to be something better!". And they say religion is far fetched.

Joey, you talk like you are from California. I feel sorry for you because you are headed for that place you do not believe exists. The only problem is there are no air conditioners there. What a shame. Besides, there are not two ways, only one - Jesus Christ.

Skip52 Are you God? Yeah thought not. Maybe bieng a Christian you first ought to spell your Saviors name right. Hint it is Not Jesus it is al-MaseeHu `Eesa*, al-MaseeH = The Messiah + `Eesa = Jesus

So the real name of JESUS is Eesa

Religious people are afraid of hell. Spiritual people have been there and back.

I have lived hell on earth. Done my dues. I am now living heaven on earth and I do not have to die to get there.

Perception is a grand tool or a curse.

Which one of the amoebas decided, "Hey, I don't like being an amoeba any more. I want to strive to be something better!". And they say religion is far fetched.

Sadstate - LOL, good question!

Just never forget that through "random chance and process," and despite all odds, even the most rediculous notions can be turned into plausible theories given enough TIME. We'll just throw "time" at the rediculous and it makes it totally conceivable! Voila!

Why, anything can happen given enough time... right??

SadStateAmerica: That is about the worst argument I have ever heard... Evolution is not a conscious action. It is a passive action that over time creates its results. Now if that amoeba was 'born' with an unusual trait that allowed it to move through fluids faster and catch prey more easily, it would have a better chance of living and making more amoebas. It doesn't say, "I want to be better..." Some amoebas just are better.

So what is the catalyst for the evolution then? Is it a malfunction as you suggest that randomly bestows greater benefits upon a select few through random biological mistakes? If so, how did the first evolution start? Were their instantaneously millions of life-forms of any sort created at the beginning of creation? And if so, where did they come from or evolve from? I am simply posing questions to hear the answers and different points of view that differ from my own.

Sad state, what is really sad is that you come to a discussion so unprepared about what is known that all you do is ask questions that most of us found the answers to in junior high school. You are basically stating that you don't understandevolution, therefore you don't believe it. Why don't you actually read a textbook or take a class and this time pay attention? Looking for answers on Newsvine is disingenuous since there isn't room for your answers here. You are here to blather your stupidity as fact, in order to make yourself feel better about your ignorance and never taking the time to remedy it.

Every single person I have ever heard not believing in evolution didn't understand the first thing about it. Every single one was demonstrably ignorant. But it is the assuredness by which they assume themselves to be correct while not fully understanding what they are talking about that really gets me.

radagast - the ignorant use inflamatory remarks to discredit the intelligence of others. I never said I was looking for answers if you actually read my post. I said I asked the question to hear differing points of view. Just because you do not wish to answer an inquisitive question does not mean I am in the wrong for asking it. Did I ever admit to not believing in evolution or did you conjure that up to try to descredit me?

Sad State- Good questions. The catalysts for evolution are genetic mutation and natural selection. Here's an example.

In a group of white rabbits a genetic mutation causes a brown one to be born. That particular difference is neither good or bad until natural selection comes into play. If all those rabbits live in a snowy environment then being brown will make that one rabbit more easily seen by predators. If all the rabbits live in a wooded area without snow the brown rabbit will have a better chance of surviving than the white ones. If that brown rabbit does survive it may pass that trait to it's offspring paving the way for lots of brown wabbits.

What causes the genetic mutation? Sometimes they just happen due to genes being copied over and over and over. Sometimes it might be radiation, chemicals, etc.

We don't know how evolution started. We just see it in action now. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact is that it exists- the theory is how it works which is still being studied and debated. Like gravity or quantum physics. We know they exist but don't really know how or why they work to any substantial degree.

Ben your post points out a flaw in my understanding which I am willing to admit. I was differentiating natural selection from evolution when they are indeed one in the same. I stand corrected and thank you for your gracious tone. I have been out of school for quite some time and much of that knowledge has apparently been forgotten. Which is why I ask for differing opinions and questions so that I may use the knowledge that I have long since forgot.

Well then Sadstate if you truly do seek answers then I apologize. But if you are simply playing Devil's advocate then that is your fault for the misunderstanding. Most here simply parrot theirquestions as accusations. I would not say I am ignorant because I use inflammatory remarks - more like fed up with ignorant accusations by those whose inquisitiveness is less than genuine. There are many things I refuse to answer because I have seen too many people seemingly out for revenge against science and they are simply not interested in answers to their questions. A quick look around Newsvine should make that obvious.

True, but the rational people here must not stoop to the level of those who are here simply to inflame others. Name-calling has in my experience never yielded a desirable result among the intelligent. Also, you could just choose not to answer.

Wow that's so silly! Your last line is so wrong on so many levels it is proof to me that you don't know a single christian, or if you do, you don't actually listen to them. Christians fear death less than any 'group' I know of, and will be the first to tell you keeping or breaking the 10 commandments doesn't have any impact on God's love for us. It's grace alone baby, not works :)

As for the whole monkey-Adam/Eve-6000 year verses science thing, I have to agree that evolution is hard to argue with, and again like someone else posted, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old.

Still, I will only believe science as blindly as people claim christians believe the Bible when science can actually create life. Until they can manage that, I have no choice but to believe in God my creator. And believing that life happened by chance? Well, that takes a lot more faith than I can muster. However, I never did understand the all or nothing mentality on either side of the argument.

We don't fear death, and we also don't believe that God doesn't love us if we break "His ten rules," as you put it. We are all born with a sinful spirit, and all we have to do is ask for His forgiveness to be recieved by His open arms. We know where we are going, who created us, and why we are here. Do you?

Morndew - It is nice to hear a balanced point of view. Thanks.

You're welcome! :) I love reading people's opinions on here, and finding more and more reasons to feel even more strongly about my own Christian beliefs. Whenever I leave these forums, I am even more confident in everything I stand for, live for, and look forward to. God is so good, and nobody can ever stop me in my tracks with some silly idea that we evolved from ameoba, or monkeys, or the Big Bang.

While the Bible doesn't say "the earth is 6,000 years old" some simple math coupled with the geneologies present in the Bible clearly point to that date, which is just as clearly incorrect.

Science has created life mutated it to create other forms of life as well. Ever heard of a virus. Ever heard of cloning. The idea that man has not done things to evolution is idiotic and blind.

If you buy chicken form the store pet your dog or cat. They all have been changed by MAN.

Hell we even grow body parts to help people who are missing them. Ears growing on the backs of mice. That sort of thing. And if Christians are not afraid of offending God. Then why fight so hard to step in the way of science. block stem cell research and such?

As a Christian it is far easier for me to believe in a Creator, with His creatures evolving and changing in appearance and adapting over the millennia than it is to believe that all of the beauty of nature and diversity of species occured from some big bang of dust that came from where??? That would have been a heck of a lot of dust and gases fellas. I mean think of the number of planets and stars you can see in only our galaxyy alone... how big was that bang? And where did the stuff to create the bang come from, and why the diversity of species, there are more than 100 species of maple trees alone, why such diversity? Yes climates and conditions vary on the Earth but not to the degree that would explain nor require so much diversity. 1100 species of mice...

I do believe that life was created by God, and I also believe that those creations have evolved and adapted.

As far as the age of the Earth - science vs Bible, the Bible says the Earth and her inhabitants were created in 6 days, but does not give what time frame was used for a day.

I know many of you may mock those of us who believe, and that is fine. I guess if I am wrong, as a Christian, and following the teachings of Christ, I will have lived a good life, hopefully added to society and been a good and loving person, raised a happy family, enjoyed my grandchildren and at the end I will be dead just like the next guy. Not such a bad thing.

If I am right in my beliefs I will get to know all of the secrets, all the mysteries will be solved, and that is an adventure I am pinning my beliefs on.

The best part about being a non-believer is you can always change your mind.

some silly idea that we evolved from ameoba, or monkeys, or the Big Bang.

Did you ever try and consider that maybe the big bang and evolution are all part of God's plan as well? The idea isn't that far out there, especially considering that God is supposed to be all powerful. It seems that man has put limitations on God's power by your logic.

And where did the stuff to create the bang come from

I'm not trying to knock your beliefs, but I have a similar question: Where did God come from in the first place?

Joeyfromcali....

I find it rather amusing as well reading all of these posts, from both sides of the fence. This is obviously a controversial topic and people that have their own beliefs will stick by them until proven otherwise. I do however like your comment Joey on "offending god" with Science research. You bring up a very good point; one religious zealot, our ex-president, who happened to veto stem cell research in the US. I also agree with another comment someone made further up the list of comments regarding "if we did not have Science", or I should say people to come up with ideas and do experiments, then we would not have electricity, running water, plagues would be rampant, etc.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is good to have healthy "banter". However, I do believe that most not all religious persons are hypocritical and need to take some of their own advice that they preach from the "bible". This however is not the case. Why should the neighbor kids not be allowed to play with one another because of differing religious views? They are children, helllooo! Just one example.

Happy bantering to all....

I do have an invisible who protects me, walks with me and comforts me. Not only that, he has prepared a beautiful place for me after death. How wrong you are. A Christian does not fear death, because he will live forever in that perfect place, not that one prepared to all the scoffers like you.

The world is very old indeed. Many things went on before the creation of man. Dinosaurs, human looking creatures etc. But the Bible talks about God then making man 6000 yrs. ago, in His image. Meaning, giving him His breathe, an eternal spirit, like Him. All creatures, dinosaurs, animals, apes, bugs etc are his creation for His reasons, but man is a creature with not only a soul(mind, emotions) like an animal, but he also has a spirit. That is how we differ from animals and past beings. We live forever, the animal kingdom does not.

The Bible is accurate and I'd like to see an evolutionist prove it is not.

Scriptures gives proof of it validity. Yes, some things sound impossible, but science usually proves it to be true.

In the Bible it talks about the earth being round, while centuries later men thought it was flat. All the scripture prophesy about Jesus, long before his birth were completely fulfilled by his coming, down to the last detail. How could people that lived thousands of years ago, know about Jesus and how the world would become in our times, if God did not reveal it to them?

Science can only study the physical evidence of creation, it cannot prove that which is spirit. So it is my opinion that though science is good, it is limited in being able to prove matters of the spirit realm. Most people do not need scientific proof of what they know, in their gut.

Trisk thanks I to believe that even us adults should be able to respect the idea of letting our kids play with other kids of other beliefs. And if all us supposed to adults go have the same open minds we could also live with the heart of a child. And the wisdom of an Elder.

I was raised Catholic and am part Native American. the priests treated us the native kids kinda less than. Well when I got older I also learned some of our natives old ways. My step mom was German and we got to see Baptist and Protestant views on god as well.

I could never really get it they all said they were right and the others were wrong. Yet they all preached the same basics. Hypocritical is one way to put it. Blinded is another.

Sometimes I think if they did walk a mile in the others shoes. That might change things.

Hey Skip52 Religious people are afraid of hell. Spiritual people have been there and back.

I have lived hell on earth. Done my dues. I am now living heaven on earth and I do not have to die to get there.

Perception is a grand tool or a curse.

It is true, science cannot disprove God or the existence of a "soul" because there is absolutely no physical evidence for them, which makes them just as hard to disprove them as it is to prove their existence.

Monkeybrainstew:

I know it's the chicken and the egg, but I also know that when I have been the most alone and the most afraid, I have felt His presence and have been comforted. My sense is He just has always been .. tangible vs intangible. I guess this is where the faith part comes in...

It just seems like something as complex as life, down to the DNA and RNA could just have been the result of a happy accident.

I could give the bible a lot more credibility if the "believers" would offer something other than the bible itself for sustantiation. You cannot state something in the bible is true because the bible says so. That is like saying the "Cat in the Hat" is real because I read it in "The Cat in the Hat." When an issue has years of scientific evidence, thousands of very smart people writing and speaking about it, and tons of physical evidence in its favor, it is hard to put that up against something that has no physical evidence, just a "because this book says so" going for it. Tough sell. Just sayin'

Except that the theory of common biological descent can be corroborated through DNA and RNA testing, cladistics, stratigraphy, geology, geography, etc etc etc.. it's called SCIENCE. It's subject to empirical and rigorous research through numerous scientific communities. Creation offers NO proof - NONE whatsoever to account for their "research" other than to attempt to undermine a few flaws or mis- steps in the scientific process - AS IF Creation will win as some sort of default to replace evolution. Sorry, ain't gonna happen -

How wrong you are. If you are right, then why do even scientists refer to evolutiion as a theory. How sad you are so wrong.

One is based on empirical evidence, the other is based on a book that was written some 1,700 years ago. Oh, and it is considered a theory just as gravity is considered a theory. In science, theory simply means an explanation with evidence because everything is unproven in science. The only way things can truly be proven is through math.

Skip riddle me this > Did Eesa (jesus)not preach against the beliefs of the Jews at temple at that time. Was he not a revolutionary for his time? Was the reason they hung him on the Cross not that he stated he was the son of GOD.

He taught 12 men to go to God direct.And yet they still choose to make a religion out of him instead. Eesa and Allah would be the proper way to state that you were a follower of Christ. He came from the middle East. And they spoke Arabic Aramaic and Hebrew.He also taught to love your fellow man in spite of his faults. Not use fear tactics and fire and brimstone of the old testament.

Yet you seem to think that it is OK to condemn others to a lake of fire for not holding your beliefs on a Religion. While your savior even says not too. You sir are the reason so many cannot find a reason to believe in your false Tales of Jesus.

Evolution is a fact even humans are evolving to this day. Christianity and Islam are killing more than they are helping. And if they are of God then your God is a murderous one. And I want no part of Him. The Devil is a tall tail as well. We do not need him humans have enough evil amongst the living.

How wrong you are. If you are right, then why do even scientists refer to evolutiion as a theory.

Skip - holy hell! I need to believe that you have heard the difference between a scientific theory and a common usage "theory." I need to believe that Skip, I really do! How long have you been parroting that ignorant line about evolution being "just a theory?" How many people must have explained this to you and yet you continue to say it!

This is why I believe all of you nutbags are simply here to fulfill your own needs to anonymously vent your frustrations at being ignorant. Read a book! The burden of proof is on you to learn, not us to teach. If you refuse the lessons then that's your problem. Go live blissfully, but leave the big questions and happenings to the scientists, please!

It's called a theory because, unlike most scientific laws, there is no mathematical equation to it that will lead to the exact same result every time.

If ten apples fall from a tree and all conditions are identical, you have a formula that will tell you exactly when they will hit the ground. That is the law of gravity.

If you release a population of gray moths in a forest where all the trees are black, eventually you will have a population of all black moths, because all the pale moths stand out and are eaten while the dark ones hide. You know this is going to happen because the theory of evolution accurately predicts this result. It can't tell you how many generations it will take or what other unrelated changes will happen though. Therefore there is no law of evolution.

Actually, DC, you are right about the moths. But this is really more about natural selection than evolution proper. Both, however, are well grounded, evidenced, and considered through empirical processes. Religion, while it is a fine thing, is not on the level of science. It offers no facts or evidence, merely the hope that adherants can overcome the natural laws and ascend from their lifeless corpses to "live" forever bowing down around a glassy sea and singing eternal praises to God, or some such tale. Doesn't appeal to me and I am willing to bet it will get on God's nerves after a while too. At any rate. I'm with the moths.

The only part of evolution that is a theory is how it will happen, not will it happen. Evolution will happen. We can predict aka theorize what will happen based on observations previously.

Take the brown and white rabbits... now some moths move in, they're grey. A shift happens, and it's snowy all the time. The moth's descendants get lighter. Due to our observations of the rabbits and seeing that the white rabbits live longer, we can extrapolate that if the moths get lighter they too will survive. So we watch the moths, in 5 cycles of life suddenly there are a lot of white moths... Evolution happened... we theorize how it would.

Evolution is NOT some sort of heirarchy - some ladder of "lesser" to "greater" species - rather evolution branches out like a bush, that's why it is common for "ancestors" to live along their "descendants" . Cyclura and ctenosaura are good examples. FYI, we will never find a "missing" link either - it doesn't work that way. We will never find a reptile sprouting wings on half its body - though many, many "tranistional" fossils have been found.

You do know the difference between apes and monkeys, right? Or did they not teach that in bible school?

Romanm,

Why do you have to behave that way. You really have some self esteem issues don't you. People are only posting their beliefs and opinions. While you and some others are out to insult people who do not believe as you do. I truly feel sorry for you.

No, roman, apes are those who believe they are descended from them.

The Baron is right, but doesn't quite answer the actual question of why there are still monkeys. There are still monkeys because they have evolved to better survive in their modern environment. They aren't trying to become humans.

That old question is born of a human arrogance. It assumes incorrectly that evolution has a goal, and that humanity is that goal. Monkeys (and apes, and every other life form) fill their own niches in nature. The path to their evolution is the result of environmental pressures that allow each species to perform and survive best within its own niche. There are still monkeys because they have passed on their best genetic makeup to survive in their niche. Same is true for every species.

Evolution is not a constant advancement. It's just reactionary to changing environments. Humans are different in that we have learned to manipulate own environment. But if you could take a tribe of the most advanced humans, drop them back into the Jurassic era without their modern technology, they'd likely be extinct within a generation, because they are not adapted to survive in that environment.

Try not to assume your own species is the "best" or "most advanced" or "special in God's eyes." You're hear because your ancestors could survive more easily in their natural environments. The poor, berated monkey has at least one strong, enviable advantage over humans. They don't have a Bible.

There is NO theory, nor has there ever been a theory that says man is descended from apes. This is called a straw dog argument. You misstate your opponent's position and then argue with that misstatement.

Darwinism (more accurately called gradualism) has not been held as a current theory in over 40 years. It was never supported by the fossil record.

The fossil record shows long periods with only slow evolution within species. They suddenly there would be an explosion of new species. Then another period of little change. This theory is called punctuated equilibrium and is the currently accepted theory and is supported by the fossil record.

All theories going back to Darwin only said that man was descended from a common ancestor with apes. This is completely substantiated by current DNA analysis that show that over 90% of DNA is identical between man and apes. There are actually ways of even using RNA analysis to determine when apes and man split ways (currently thought to be around 6-7 million years ago.)

The two examples of evolution that locked them in my mind forever occurred when my wife was pregnant with my daughter. As I read about fetal development, it was easy to realize that a fetus goes through the same steps as species did on their way to being man. Tail, gills, webbed feet --- all have their place in time in the womb. And the other was when my daughter was very small. There is something called the mammalian diving reflex. It can be triggered by blowing gently into an infant's face. go read about it.

Chris - that is good stuff. Thank you for posting and clearing up some misconceptions.

Well it has always been understood that we didn't come from monkeys, however we share the same ancestor - though it is amazing that humans and chimps share the same RNA deletion and - although there are 10 to the 42nd power of combinations for cytochrome C sequences, humans and chimps are exactly the same... among other similarities...

I'm particular to the Tooth Fairy myself.

Hey, the Easter Bunny beats all!!!!

Why does it appall you that people choose to believe in God? Should we be bashing you because you don’t believe?

Maybe you should find something to believe in so you can stop being such a prick to those with a believe system.

Mike,

Its because they are scared.

The only monkey here is you and you ancestors. I pray that God might spare you from the judgement of hell by saving your wretched soul or maybe you just want to burn for eternity.

Bd,

I can only assume that you mean non christians are scared, scared of what, that when we die we are simply dead? (our bodies anyway) I can tell you that I do not believe in a Christian God and I am completely unafraid of death, because I know it is a natural part of life, as far as those who are rude to you due to your beliefs, that is not right either, but can you understand that the idea of Christians being persecuted (as evidenced if you believe in the bible) has turned tides and it is we non christians who are bombarded in this country every day by christians telling us we are wrong and saying we are going to hell and all of these things, and sometimes people lose their cool and fall to that level. I simply pose this question to you, how do you know that your answer is right? And please, do not quote the bible, because you were not there when it was written, and neither was I. I'm not being sarcastic, I am simply asking, how do you know? I don't claim to know, therefore I do not judge you for your beliefs, I simply want the world to remove it's prejudices and strive towards true enlightenment in love and peace, and I feel religion and the belief that one group is superior over another has been a great detriment to that. So again, I pose you the question, and I pose it to all Christians or any group of people who would believe they are greater than another, I understand that you have "faith", but faith is not knowledge, how do you know?

letitbeletitbe,

You are dreaming if you think that the world would be a more loving peaceful place without believers. Move to North Korea or any other communist country. See how peaceful life is there where people are not allowed to believe in God.

Sorry, but it takes faith to believe in what you cannot see. Like it or not, you cannot find God with your mind. Your spirit inside of you knows there is more to life than just this.

I think it's hilarious when poeple say that those who believe in god are afraid of death. Your'e saying they are afraid of paradise? Is it less scary to believe that if I'm, say, out in the wilderness alone and die for whatever reason, i know that thats all for me, that that corpse, to be torn apart by animals, or eaten by worms, is me, all of me, the end of awareness of anything. Hmm, I think it's easy for me to see which is scaryer. Unfortunatly for me, I am not graced with a belief in God, I am, at best an agnostic. You either believe or dont, there is no point in pretending to believe, if you are pretending in order to gain social status or to be "holyer than thou" to look down your nose at someone, you are really an atheist in disguise. Such poeple are not Christian, or Jew or whatever religion they pretend to, they are athiests in disguise(like pediphile priests), and should not be used as examples against poeple of real religious faith. There are plenty of poeple of genuine faith, hard to tell who they are (well except some muslims ofcourse, who would doubt the faith of someone who could fly a jet into a building while singing of the greatness of god? Now that IS a true believer). We should be thankfull this counry was founded by Christians on a foundation of Christian ideals.

letitbeletitbe,

"I can only assume that you mean non christians are scared, scared of what"

Of the unknown. That if they are wrong will they experence hell? Will they be seperated from GOD if he does exist.

"how do you know that your answer is right"

There is really not enough space to fully explain my feelings so I'll give you a few reasons why I believe.

My belief is that I feel that there is more out there than whats been made known through science. Here is a few examples of why I believe we didn't just come about though a scum pond and ended up on dry land. I mean look at the complexity of the eye. It See's things far and near and is able to focus on its own. At least for the young folks out there LOL. Look at the complexity of the brain. Science has already shown that we only use approximately 10% of its power. I can't fathom how evolution could have ever done such a thing of marvelous design. Why is it that humans have the power to manipulate their surroundings (matter) when no other species can do the same? Another example is the question "how did the universe come about?" Can't create something out of nothing. So something had to start the big bang. Who created it and why? The calculated expectancy of everything being in the right place at the right time for life to begin (big bang) is considered incalculable by some of the foremost reknown scientist of this world. Those are questions of which I have pondered many times. My profession pushes me to use critical thinking much like a scientist. To examine with all available techniques from science and math to calculate possible outcomes and to derive an answer to the problem so that others will not be hurt and to provide a service that my customer can use and be safe.

My beliefs gives me calm in the midst of the storm. Have I questioned my beliefs? Darn right I have. I wouldn't be human if I didn't and anyone who says different is lying to themselves. You sir are the exception to the rule. You are obviously knowdgelegeable and are searching for facts to back any feeling or thoughts one way or the other. Science produces facts to things that can be seen and or reproduced predictably. But it is those facts that keeps changing as we discover new information and understanding. Scientific facts are not as straight forward as we would all like them to be. If you choose to believe in science alone then you are putting your faith in science and if you must place faith in something then I choose to believe that there is something more to life than that there is here on earth.

Mike- Because the people with the belief systems come in every time and try to get into a discussion that should be scientific by simply spouting their beliefs. They reject all the hard work done by professionals across the sciences by spouting beliefs that to those outside that belief system ( and you can count everyone in other religions ) is unsupported nonsense.

If you were a fan of automotive technology, and every time a new advancement was made, numerous people made comments that engineers don't know what they are talking about becasue invisible magic elves actually push cars along, you would get frustrated too.

The theory of common biological descent can be corroborated through DNA and RNA testing, cladistics, stratigraphy, geology, geography, etc etc etc.. it's called SCIENCE. It's subject to empirical and rigorous research through numerous scientific communities. Creation offers NO proof - NONE whatsoever - to account for their "research" other than to attempt to undermine a few flaws or mis- steps in the scientific process - AS IF Creation will win as some sort of default to replace evolution. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Conservative ONLY denounce science when it comes to Evolution, earth Age, Stem Cell research - c'mon, if it interfers with your "beliefs'' only then do you see it as some sort of threat. Get over it, Creation will NEVER replace the model of common biological descent...

The Dr Dino who is not a dr. and is currently in jail for tax evasion?

Should I even mention that he was a fraud and his information is so far wrong that you would have to be willfully ignorant to believe him?

That Dr. Dino?

Science is NOT looking for a "missing link" per se - though numerous trasnsitional fossils have been found. The entire dinosaur to bird transitional fossils has been represented with NO morphological gaps, for example. Same with fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, land mammal to whale, etc etc etc

The common argument of a non-book reading idiot. We are lucky to have any fossils at all and evolution has been shown to be correct without a single one.

I agree with your statment about fossils. I just think it is amazing that neither side can offer any definitive proof.

Patriot, I do read .. Perhaps if you wish to be more cerebral read a little book called " I Don't Have Enough FAith to be an Atheist" .. very scientific.

Also, read the comments by a Robert Jastrow Director of Mount Wilson Observatory and founder of NASA's Goddard Space Institute of Space Studies..

His years of analysis re: Big Bang hence ..supernatural forces caused the Big Bang ... Supernatural means outside of nature.

Our science relies on the Law of Casusality .. Something is created from something ..

then how do we explain how the universe was made from nothing ?

it is generally accepted the universe is not eternal ... so what triggered it ?

i do not know, however, if it was due to a supernatural force .. I gotta wonder ..

PS .. I am not a Bible Thumper just trying to evolve myself.

RJM you are talking astronomy on a anthropolgy issue...

Same rooted basis .. Bible vs Science ..

Ack , if I got off topic .. just trying to have a friendly meaningful exchange.

Occam's razor pretty clearly states that even if the Big Bang were initiated by an extra-universal force it is most likely a simple explanation like the collision of branes via string theory as opposed to an infinitely complex explanation, like the existence of an even more complex sentient being. Either is conjecture, the assumption of a deity just happens to be poor conjecture.

Occam's Razor postulates when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

You choose "branes via string theory as opposed to infinitely complex explanation"

Got me where you are going with this argument. Who's to say a sentinent being is a more complex theory than string theory ..

String theory not infinetly complex ? Let's see you have Quantum Chromodynamics, hadrons, Quantum gravity, gravitons, particle theory etc.

Respectfully, I am not convinced. I respect your opinion but I do not agree.

Our ancient ancestors were probably hemophroditic at one time. Evolution most likely took us from simple asexual life forms, to hemophroditic lifeforms, before arriving at unique sex lifeforms. It certainly took more than thousands of years. The first multicellular animals date back to nearly a billion years ago.

I am a proud "fool"!.

So you believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans?

I'm glad the christians of the NRA invented guns and killed all of them

The bible also tells us to throw stones a hookers (harlets) Then only if we are without sin. In later chapters. There is allot of back and forth even within its pages. It is only a guide presented by men who had great imaginations.

Why would God stop with them? Did not Ghandi have great teachings as well. Did he not die for his people. Advocate peace?

Look Up cult in a dictionary it defines any modern day religion. Mans wide spread fear tactic religion is just a passed down way of controlling a population.For the few in power

Buy yet at the same time I believe there is a GOD but he is mine so get your own. If you don't go within you'll go without. I also do not believe that God only talks to religious leaders. God speaks to all some just don't take the time to listen.

Your Jesus even said that man could go direct to god. there is no need for a church Pastor. the temple is your own Body your soul is your connection.

Try this maybe one person it will help. go out somewhere at night. Alone make sure it is quiet no distractions. And just listen for 30 minutes. Let your thoughts just pass. And listen Look up at the stars and all around you. And talk to your god not mine but yours see what happens.Make sure to also listen

Nothing to lose only you know you did it.

Killingtime,

I have one question to pose to you: If God created man, then why would it need to create all of the universe around it? The Bible talks about God creating the earth in 7 days, okay, I'll go with you on that, but it says nothing of the rest of the universe. I only ask because I think people miss that part sometimes, that the universe is so much grander than ourselves, why would all that "empty space" be needed if we are all God created? It's just a question to keep your minds open my friends, I don't know either way, am I a religious person in any way, no, do I denounce religionists or creationists as wrong, no, because I wasn't there. Could we be an accident, a cosmic anomaly that just happened to morph out of the dust of the universe, yes, could we be a well thought out plan of something greater than ourselves, yes, but to me that just seems a little off is all. Do I want the best for all people in this world, yes, and that should be all that matters to any of us. But I digress, my question was, and still is, if God created us to be special, than why would it need to create the rest of the universe?

I am a Christian but please don't lump all of us into the small group that believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And killingtime can speak for all Christians because...?

Than you wonder why America is falling apart. Idiots like this trying to make a case for evolution. God and biblical principles being thrown away as garbage. Then you wonder why our kids are killing one another and men having sex with men. Promoting a godless society will do this to a nation. People doing what is right in their own eyes. Just look at our country, immorally is sinking further and further into the depths of hell every year.

If you believe our children are behaving morally and getting better each year you are a moron if you believe that to be true. Look up all the killings of teenagers in the last ten years it has gotten worse each year. There is no sense of right or wrong with our children with the way they are being taught in the public schools. When you are being taught you came from a ape why should you care what you do with your life. They are being taught that you are accountable to no one but yourself. It will only get worse just wait and see.

I'm more afraid of you uneducated CINO's - Christians in Name Only - than teaching. It seems religion wants to keep us DUMB by not acknowledging facts AND evidence and revert to stories rather than facts... Seeing that less than 1% of everything that ever lived fossilized, it is amazing we have the riches of fossils we do now. But fortunately you lot are a minority . Many religious communities are accepting the fact and theory of an old Earth as well as Evolution. The real believers in God realize science AND religion can co exist . And Darwin NEVER recanted his views or theories on Evolution, sorry. The theory of common biological descent ( and Earth age ) can be corroborated through DNA and RNA testing, cladistics, stratigraphy, geology, geography, astronomy, etc etc etc.. it's called SCIENCE. It's subject to empirical and rigorous testing through numerous scientific communities. Creation offers NO proof - NONE whatsoever - to demonstrate their "research" other than to attempt to undermine a few flaws or mis- steps in the scientific process - AS IF Creation will win as some sort of default to replace evolution. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Conservative ONLY denounce science when it comes to Evolution, earth Age, Stem Cell research - c'mon, if it interfers with your "beliefs'' only then do you see it as some sort of threat. Get over it, Creation will NEVER replace the model of common biological descent...

Have you noticed your religion changes every time science finds a new fact? 2000 years ago religion stated the basics: The earth is flat, the sun and stars revolve around the earth. "Medicine" is the work of Satan, and if you show an ounce of thinking otherwise you are a witch and need to be burned at the stake.

You have creation in a book therefore it's fact? Well we have evolution in a book to!

I'm sorry, but my parents tought me right from wrong without instilling in me an irrational fear of an invisible being. I let my own conscience be my guide and that's all I need to be a good human being. I'm sorry you need that primitive crutch to keep you on the right path.

If the lack of god is the reason men have sex with other males, then please explain why some priest were/are molesting boys. They believe in God.

It's not the schools that turn out bad kids because they teach evolution, it's parents not doing their job as parents, by teaching their children to have simple respect for themselves and others. By the time they reach kindergarten they should know the basics of right from wrong.

Oh Philly. How sad and ignorant your comments are. You must lead a very miserable life.

phillyboy

You're a disgrace to your city and your state. If believing the earth is only 2,000 years old lets you sleep at night- good for you, but don't insist that everyone else act like a moron because you choose to.

Phillyboy: Well, you certainly failed at saying it nicely. Also in being honest--you fear "evolutionists" (whoever they are), masked in the language of contempt, with false charges ("promoting a godless society"). How ironic can you get?! Your statement is nothing more than the propaganda of intelligent design. You say there is evidence because you believe there is. The typical smug attitude of the non-thinker. If you were secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't need to belittle others.

God will when you are in hell for eternity. I pray God has mercy on your soul. God loves you despite your hatred for Him.

Can't hate something you don't believe exists. Hate is something that is pushed by the religious community. Whereas Scientific fact, is just that, fact, hate isn't an issue there.

However, I do believe there is a being greater than ourselves. I tend to believe more along the lines of Morndew in a previous post. (post 9.1) I believe there is too much scientific evidence to dispel the fact that evolution is a true and natural occuring pheonemon. And I feel that by hiding behind religion and not choosing to look at the facts makes you ignorant. Which is why more and more people denounce the "God" theory that religion places in front of them.

Please please please don't try to adorn yourself in false love and your attempted "non-judgment". Christians are constantly judging, "Oh I will pray for you" "I hope God has mercy on you", get over it please and stop pretending you know the answer. Have you died? Have I died? No...None of us know the answer, so take solace in the fact that you think you live this life for the next, telling others how wrong they are and feeling good about yourself because you think you are right, and I will keep trying to spread a message of true non judgement and love and actual peace among EQUAL humans. Remember: When you think you know the answer, and can tell others they are wrong, you are judging, and judging leads to attempted superiority over others. This can only lead to the "hell" that has befallen many people on this world as a result of the loss of love towards those you believe to be inferior.

i knew it! i knew if i came here after reading this story there would be a bunch of religious morons posting messages

I thought the same thing. I was hoping to find a discussion from Newsvine science lovers, instead of the same old political crap, but sadly, no. It's turned into a god v science debate. I am genuinely disappointed that the religious zealots are crowding out what could be good intelligent discussion on the repercussions of this find. Someone like me who hoped to learn something is instead just reading the tired rhetoric of the religous. I'll keep checking back to see some actual relevant discussion of the article.

Alk,

you are right, and I fell into it as well simply because people always defend what they believe in. But I suppose to move into scientific discussion from my earlier posed question to the people on here...

Scientifically, I think this discovery will somewhat shift what people believe about evolution. Mainly due to the simple fact that most of the mass public, even intelligent, educated people, believe that humans evolved FROM apes, or apes of sort, but interestingly, this article supposes a fresher idea more congenial to the logical question of "why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans" and rather moves towards the presupposition that the actual species that evolved into man, and apparently ape at this point, is extinct, and the two species, man and ape, evolved in strikingly different patterns due to climate, diet, enemy predators etc... and kept only a few common traits that haven't been evolved out of us, and them, yet. I hope that the next great find is maybe a million years older than this and has even more ape and human-like features so maybe we can make a chain of inferences between the two and find where the split occurred. Who knows, if we go back far enough maybe there will be a little of another mammal group in there!

I'm sure I read they found we lost most of the body hair over time staring about 1 million years ago, and developed skin color as a result (The further North you are, the less pigment you need in your skin). Oh no, did I just say all humans are part of the same race? :)

Of course we are part of the same race! :-) But some people, unfortunately many of my color grouping (I'm white, or Caucasian, or whatever you want to call it) don't want to believe that because it would humanize the "ethnic" groups that they have worked so hard to subjugate over the last thousand years or so. Skin pigmentation and physical mutations ( I mean that scientifically ) have occurred over millions of years in response to the environment with which our ancestors dealt. I mean, take me for instance, I'm white because my ancestors were in Germanic regions and lacked pigment need, I'm kind of hairy because of the cold harsh winters, I am muscular because of the need for brute strength in grueling labor conditions, and I retain a layer of healthy fat which I can easily add to if I don't work out and eat fatty foods (I fight it everyday! :-) because in the long harsh winters, there was a need for semi-hibernation. Each race has it's own characteristics that were a necessity for survival. I personally think that through breeding and our changing the climate to fit us, rather than the other way around, we will all eventually look the same again.

Yes, and fortunately you lot are a minority . Many religious communities are accepting the fact and theory of an old Earth as well as Evolution. The real believers in God realize science AND religion can co exist . And Darwin NEVER recanted his views or theories on Evolution, sorry. The theory of common biological descent ( and Earth age ) can be corroborated through DNA and RNA testing, cladistics, stratigraphy, geology, geography, astronomy, etc etc etc.. it's called SCIENCE. It's subject to empirical and rigorous testing through numerous scientific communities. Creation offers NO proof - NONE whatsoever - to demonstrate their "research" other than to attempt to undermine a few flaws or mis- steps in the scientific process - AS IF Creation will win as some sort of default to replace evolution. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Conservative ONLY denounce science when it comes to Evolution, earth Age, Stem Cell research - c'mon, if it interfers with your "beliefs'' only then do you see it as some sort of threat. Get over it, Creation will NEVER replace the model of common biological descent...

I never said that religious beliefs and science cannot co-exist. I just said that evolution and religion cannot co-exist. :) I guess we will find out someday when you are swimming in the Lake of Fire! But you know, for your own sake, I hope your theories are correct. I don't believe they are, but you had better hope you are right! Creationism is based on clear FACT. Evolution is some crackpot story a guy came up with over 100 years ago. Creation is written word, it has been passed on for hundreds of years. I don't know why you keep bringing up stem-cell research, I never even mentioned it in my comment. Stem cell research is a totally different topic buddy. Have fun debating, it has been good hearing your opinion!

If god created us out of thin air, then why is our biology so similar to all of the other mammals? Whales have very little hair also. I don't think Darwin ever disclaimed that God created life. His theory was based on natural selection, which says that nature, in simplistic terms, will favor a characteristic that enables a life form to capitalize more efficiently on its particular environment. How is does this deny the existence of God? Maybe God created natural selection to better manage the universe and to improve it. The line of thought that humans are above everything else and were created in some special vacuum was perpetuated by humans to justify the total destruction of other life forms (and other humans) and the natural world, all in the name of God, which is an abomination, and was never encouraged by Jesus as far as I know. This whole mindset has created many of the problems that we now face today. You know what? Apes and Chimps, although they fight and argue, they don't go around destroying their environment permanently like we do. How does saying we decended from the family of apes deny the existence of god. God created them too, right? Are you saying God did a bad job with the primates?

WRONG, limely, evolution is a THEORY - in the scientific realm, it is a tried and tested hypothesis. I study herpetology - I'm not some looney debater. We have the entire dinsaur to bird lineage represented in fossilized form with NO morphological gaps. You should also look into the fish to amphibian transition in the Devonian era - there are your "missing links". You see the fin transform into feet, first from 8 digits, down to 6, to five, etc. "Evolution" is a basis for most all sciences in the Biological realm - creation has no purpose there. Before we implement a certain teaching in our school system it must meet rigorous evidentary criteria. "Creation" falls short of both data as well as evidence.

The Baron - I have been looking for posts like yours that actually discuss Ardi. I would be very interested in reading more of your posts, since I just happen to enjoy a good Discovery channel show every now and then. It is so very obvious that the religous posters didn't read the article, as they point out many differences between Ardi and any other skeleton on record. Good posts.

alk - I am flattered, but a mere student of Herpetology ( albeit hands on ) but am a little versed in "Evolution" . I have studied anthropology and paleontology though, but the living reptile world is far more fascinating... the Newsvine intro should link you to my email... thanks

The bible? Isn't that the same book that also explicitly states that we are NOT supposed to cast god's judgement for him/her? That we are not supposed to say things like "when you are swimming in a lake of fire"? Yeah, I thought so. Personally, I agree with the sentiment that evolution is a creation of god. Science is not in the business of disproving god, but, merely trying to understand how god created the universe/multiverse.

This article is just aiding in pointing more and more to the factual,historical evidence we have that humans have always been humans, and we aren't related to monkeys at all.

If we aren't related to monkeys then why, prey tell, do you have a "tailbone"? There's not much reason for god to give you one if you aren't actually going to have a tail, therefore it must be left over from ancestors that had tails and gradually lost them. Unless the creator just felt like monkeying around.

If we evolved so long ago, why aren't we still evolving? We sure aren't perfect now by any means, so why would we have stopped evolving?

Humans are still evolving. Black Africans have evolved a gene that gives some resistance to malaria, though it is in an imperfect state and results in sickle cell anemia if you inherit two copies. Ashkenazi Jews have evolved a slight resistance to tuberculosis, though again two copies of the protective gene results in a dangerous birth defect. Amerindians and Mongoloid Siberians evolved from the same ancestral population, but one is more adapted to living in arctic conditions. The Sherpas of Nepal have many biological adaptations to high altitude living.

If we had all that hair all over our bodies, why did we lose it?

If you live in a forest environment, body fur is useful. It keeps thorns and insects a bit farther from your skin and holds in heat on chilly nights. If you move from the shady forests to the broiling tropical savannah, it becomes an extra layer of clothing you can't remove. The more hair you have holding in body heat, the greater your chances of overheating and dying, while creatures with less fur stay cooler and live to reproduce. Of course, as you lose fur you have to evolve dark skin to avoid sun poisoning. Have you ever noticed how apes and monkeys have white skin, just like Europeans?

Got any more silly questions?

Limey,

We are still evolving, and I can prove it to you. Just over 100 years ago, man did not have the capability of flying. There were men who observed birds in flight and wanted to figure out how to accomplish it for themselves, so they began to build things that they thought would get them airborne - mechanical wings and so forth. When these experimental things didn't work, they kept trying other things. Eventually, man learned enough through experimentation how to build an apparatus that would get them airborne. When that worked, these and other men kept at it until they had created what we now call an airplane. So, back when all this started, the people involved were human, right? Of course they were. And, we are human today, right? But, as recently as the late-1800's, human brains had not evolved enough to solve the complex issues of achieving flight. But now, we know how it can be done. We have evolved into that degree of intelligence, and we continue to evolve into even greater intelligence (well, most of us anyway).

Keep in mind, many years ago magnetism was seen as some kind of magic. That was before we learned to understand it and even control it under certain circumstances.

God does not need you to believe in Him to exist. One day you will know the truth, it's a shame it will be to late for you then.

God has given us His Word, His creation to bear witness to the truth that he created all living things and yet like a fool you will continue to believe the fairy tale of evolution. WHY?

If God wants to give me his word, then I'm still waiting. I see all the evil in this world all done in his name whether it be God or Allah and I can't help but think, "If God is perfect and he does not make mistakes then he is evil for creating this world I am scared to raise kids in.

God does not need you to believe in Him to exist. One day you will know the truth, it's a shame it will be to late for you then.

I thought God was forgiving, right? The point of being here is to learn compassion for others if there is or isn't a God. Just because you believe one thing Philly does not make you right & someone else wrong.

It is so odd to see so called Christians. Acting in the very same manor that Killed their so called savior. The temples at the time of your Jesus killed him because his thoughts were different than their religious laws.

They had the Romans do there dirty work. And the Roman Catholic church is the largest by far today. Yet most U.S. Christians hold the beliefs of the King James version of the Bible and hang on to the old testament more than the words of the Savior they say they believe in.

Ironic that most of these followers tend to be sheep instead of Shepard's.

Blasphemy was what got Jesus killed he would not recant that he was a son of God. And no longer needed the Temple to talk to God. Yet you all say go to Church (temple) to be saved. And it has to be a christian church. You are cult members nothing more nothing less.

I do believe in God and mine is bigger than yours he allows room for all creation Good and bad. And knows it has a balance. He also is strong enough to hold together a Universe not just a planet. She also created Atoms along with life.

Evolution is just a change for my God it would boring to have a static creation. My God even created Atheists to help uncover any doubts I might have had. My god is the Bond between every living and non living thing we can think of and have not found yet.

My god has reasons for everything even if My feeble human mind cannot understand yet. We are getting to see how creation unfolded on this Rock which is just one of many.

for my god it is never to late you can always come back for a remedial session. Hell is man made it is opposition to a temporary situation. Heaven is acceptance of what is at that time.

If the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a fake, why didn't the Jewish Pharisees just simply produce his body and end the threat of Christianity to them immediately?

If you believe his followers stole his body, why would they be willing to suffer a painful, torturous, humiliating death for what they knew themselves first hand to be a lie?

Could one really believe that the 3 year ministry of Jesus Christ from 2000 years ago could grow into what Christianity is today based on a few allegedly misguided illiterate commoners with no possessions or power?

Why do you think no modern archeological discoveries have shown the Bible to be out of step with the evidence and that past criticisms continue to be proven wrong?

The fool in his heart says there is no god. Human nature wants to dictate what is good. The last thing the non believer wants is accountability to a supreme being. The idea of being accountable to a perfect being is scary to them. Therefore they must destroy all evidence intellectually to preserve their own godship.

Personally I always thought that anyone who thinks God and evolution could only be mutually exclusive, were clearly underestimating God.

I believe the Bible, but I don't think the Bible tells us everything. God has given us the information we need to live the lives we should. The old testement told them back then what they needed, and when times changed, Jesus came to refine the message. What we do with that information is up to ourselves.

Science is humanity's logical need to understand everything else, and it's usually fascinating.

@Morndew

I think your comment reflects the correct perspective--The Bible is neither a science book nor a history book, but rather an account of God's people, the offering of salvation, and advice on how to live a Christ-like life.

As for the matters of God and evolution, you are precisely correct--to say God could not have used evolution is a severe underestimation of His omnipotence. He is certainly capable of it, and I can't see how evolution would disprove God's existence. The Creation story in Genesis has two primary purposes: to show that God did create all things--and whatever method (e.g. evolution) He used is, quite frankly, irrelevant--and that mankind is His special creation, created in His image; take note that "in His image" refers to our having a soul, free-will, reason, a moral sense, etc., like God, not a physical resemblance. I don't see how He cannot have used evolution to develop us and then created a soul to put into our animal bodies, and from the Christian perspective, whether or not this is how it happened is irrelevant--we are what we are, and living our lives for God is the highest form of happiness and perfection we can achieve.

Why cannot God have created the universe and all its creatures so that they may be understood by scientific methods? I say He can, and, given the evidence, did create it so that it could be understood. Science is not a surrogate for religion, and religion is not a surrogate for science. One explains our purpose in life--to love God and all others with all our capabilities--and the other explains how the universe works. I see no contradictions here.

FINALLY a viewpoint from the Religious community that makes sense ...

Lol, yeah, except the majority of us don't believe this. The Bible says nothing of God creating us to evolve after He already worked to make us in His image. Some Christians do believe this, but they are pulling the idea up from nowhere.

MACK,

With all due respect you know nothing about God to make a statement like that.

Lol, yeah, except the majority of us don't believe this. The Bible says nothing of God creating us to evolve after He already worked to make us in His image.

You are free to stagnate.

And he takes that fredom very seriously.

If, as some of you believe, we are exact duplicates of god and have never changed -- what did god have a penis for? Or an anus? Or sinuses, or an appendix? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Seems to me that an omnipotent and omnipresent being wouldn't need hands to fashion things, or legs to walk. What would be the point? I would think that god could get by with a pretty amorphous form, like a single celled amoeba. maybe that is the image we were created in, only not being omnipotent it didn't work out as well for us. That being the case, an omniscient god would foresee this problem and create a mechanism like evolution so that our inefficient amoeba bodies could become better suited to whatever environment we end up in.

Great feedback all around on this issue. First, biology and evolution are taught at religious schools, including catholic, so that must mean something. Amish people breed cows and horses selectively and they are high up on the religious scale and that's really all evolution is, and third, I don't believe any apes, chimps, monkeys or orangutans had anything to do with killing the Son of God, and finally, the bible was written by people, not GOD or HIS SON. I really don't understand why evolution is so negatively perceived. Really the only GOD and/or church that matters is the one one in your head. OandO.